davee123

I used to buy things on eBay now and again. Somewhere in the ballpark of 5-20 sets, I'm not sure exactly. And NONE of them were EVER 100% complete. A couple were pretty close-- missing things like the 1x2 brick/plate that comes on the back of horses in old castle sets. Or missing plumes of varying sizes (like, including the small red plume, but not the medium and large red plumes). Things like that. But those were the BEST ones in my eBay experience. By and large, sets that I've purchased on eBay were missing 1-5% of the elements. Enough so they LOOK pretty complete, but really aren't. The reason? I think it's generally because people who sell on eBay don't know the LEGO market. They're people who are selling their old sets, or selling their kids' collections, or what-have-you. They pick the set up off the shelf, match it up with the instructions, and assume it's good. And heaven forbid that you want them to send you the missing 1x4 plate that's missing, because there's no chance in hell that they'll have an extra one lying around! BrickLink, by comparison, is FAR better. The sellers KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. They're experienced enough in LEGO to know to use BrickLink, which generally means they know the LEGO market. And if they leave out some elements, there's a decent chance that they can either give you one of their spares that they have lying around, OR make arrangements for you to get one via another seller. From experience, I would say that roughly 75% of the sets I've purchased on BrickLink have actually been complete. It happens now and again that something's incomplete, but it's usually not by much. And most importantly, EVERY time I've brought up the issue, they've ALWAYS been willing to do something to compensate. Admittedly, sometimes (I think it happened to me only once), the compensation was to just get a full refund and send the set back. Anyway, eBay is a crap-shoot-- and the odds aren't exactly stacked in your favor. BrickLink sellers are a lot more consistently reliable. DaveE

The funny thing is that the one at MiniLand looks to be VERY close to minifig scale. By a quick measurement, the towers should be about 35-40 studs "wide" in minifig scale, and the miniland model's towers are about 30-35 studs wide, judging from various pictures online. Of course, the miniland model's also proportionally squished, too, so it's even further out of scale ... for MINIFIGS. Let alone miniland scale! DaveE

This winds up being a huge problem I have with this forum. There are 9 pages of discussion BEFORE any useful information is known, then pictures get posted, then there are an additional 12 pages of discussion AFTER the pictures get released, meaning that the pictures I'm looking for are lost somewhere in the middle of the thread. Can whoever gets new pictures just make a brand new topic called "Tower Bridge Pictures!" and let the existing topic go stale when that happens? Is it really so terrible to have two topics on the same subject, especially when the first one is full of fluff like this? DaveE

Ahh, you kids. ? - ATL is born, primarily English speaking newsgroup for all things LEGO. Still around! (though not used very often) December 21, 1993 - RTL becomes the new home for ATL, basically RTL at a new location. Again, not used much anymore. September 18, 1998 - LUGNET is launched. Again, English speaking, all things LEGO, and still used, although not as much as other sites. February 5, 1999 - German LEGO Fan Forum launched (German speaking, obviously). No longer around. November 28, 1999 - 1000Steine takes over for the German speaking online discussions, again all things LEGO. They're still around. ? - FBTB launches its forums, Star-Wars Centric, English LEGO site July 21, 2001 - BZ Community (Bionicle-centric English forum, switched later to BZPower) July 20, 2002 - BZPower starts (new home for Bionicle stuff, still active, I think) November 12, 2002 - LEGO launches its own discussion forums (not sure if they're all 100% English or not) September 15, 2003 - Classic-Castle lauched (English-speaking, Castle-centric LEGO) January 28, 2004 - EUROBRICKS, originally supposedly Euro-centric Eurobricks was supposed to be Euro-centric discussion, but even that specificity was taken before it by the lugnet.loc.eu newsgroup. DaveE

I like how I think most people are answering the question of "what can we do to make YOU buy more LEGO", rather than the REAL question which was "what can we do to make you RECOMMEND LEGO to your friends?" I can't recommend LEGO to friends as much as I once did. The parts are cheaper, the instructions come all wrinkled, the boxes aren't easily re-usable, the pieces aren't consistent in color. I will NOT recommend junk to my friends, but I'm quite comfortable recommending expensive things to my friends. Plus, I don't care if it's expensive. LEGO has always been an expensive toy. I suggested that they raise their prices and their quality level. DaveE

Yes, but you could just as easily ask why make EB when there are dozens of other LEGO discussion sites out there? Because making forums is easy, no forum will ever satisfy ALL of its members, and everyone wants to be an admin. Everyone wants to try their hand at it, and sometimes, people wind up making a good site (like EB). Most of the time, though, not. DaveE

LUGNET uses 2 different formats, depending on who's doing the downloading. Both use newline separated records, tab-separated fields, and a few header lines. The fields order is what differs depending on whether you're downloading your own list or someone else's: If you're downloading your own list, it's: URL ID Number Name Year Pieces # of copies I own (private) # of pieces I own (private) # of copies I own (public) # of pieces I own (public) # of copies I want to buy (private) # of pieces I want to buy (private) # of copies I want to buy (public) # of pieces I want to buy (public) # of copies I want to sell (private) # of pieces I want to sell (private) # of copies I want to sell (public) # of pieces I want to sell (public) Example: Own Own Own Own WTB WTB WTB WTB WTS WTS WTS WTS Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Public URL ID Number Name Year Pcs. Sets Pcs. Sets Pcs. Sets Pcs. Sets Pcs. Sets Pcs. Sets Pcs. http://guide.lugnet.com/set/0005 0005_1 0005 1 x 2 Lamp Brick 9V 2008- 2 2 4 2 4 - - - - - - - - http://guide.lugnet.com/set/145 145_1 145 LEGO Building Set +1974 413 4 1652 4 1652 - - - - - - - - http://guide.lugnet.com/set/200_2 200_2 200 Idea Book (different cover) 1986 0 1 0 1 0 - - - - - - - - http://guide.lugnet.com/set/204 204_1 204 The World of LEGO Toys (Softcover) 1987 0 1 0 1 0 - - - - - - - - If you're downloading someone else's list, it's: URL ID Number Name Year Pieces # of copies I own (public) # of pieces I own (public) # of copies I want to buy (public) # of pieces I want to buy (public) # of copies I want to sell (public) # of pieces I want to sell (public) Example: Own Own WTB WTB WTS WTS URL ID Number Name Year Pcs. Sets Pcs. Sets Pcs. Sets Pcs. http://guide.lugnet.com/set/0013 0013_1 0013 {Space Mini-Figures} 1978 {10} 1 10 - - - - http://guide.lugnet.com/set/305_1 305_1 305 2 Crater Plates 1979 2 1 2 - - - - http://guide.lugnet.com/set/306_1 306_1 306 Landing Plates 1979 2 1 2 - - - - http://guide.lugnet.com/set/442_1 442_1 442 Space Shuttle 1979 35 1 35 - - - - DaveE

The big differences are: 1) Peeron isn't kept up to date as quickly. It relies in part on the LUGNET database, which similarly isn't kept up to date as quickly as Huw (and any cohorts he might have) updates BrickSet. 2) Peeron gives you lists of parts, and can allow you to put in loose parts as well as sets. Brickset can't. However, BrickSet HAS recently added minifigs-- so you can look at the inventory of minifigs that you own, just not the other types of parts. 3) BrickSet is reasonably average speed. Peeron's slow. 4) BrickSet (I HATE this one) will NOT allow you to possess a set that they think isn't available yet. Peeron will let you add them regardless. 5) BrickSet has other "non-set" items that you won't find on Peeron. Decks of cards, pens, etc. Peeron tends to just have the "normal" sets. Otherwise, apart from some little tidbits here and there, they're both pretty well on par. The reports, downloads, and imports they have differ a bit, but they're similar in nature. DaveE

Ok, what are "WR" and "HF"? WR might be "World Racers"? But what's HF? DaveE

"Best way" is of course a tradeoff. Way #1: One Big Lot If you sell it on eBay as a lot of "10 kg of LEGO" with no pictures, you'll make about $5-$6 per pound (I think the going rate was around $5, but it seemed higher the last time I looked). If you include pictures, you'll get more-- especially pictures that make it VERY CLEAR that you've got vintage 1980's and 1990's stuff. The more detail you show in your pictures, the better price you'll probably get. Also be sure to mention ALL the set numbers and names you can find in the listing. Again, the more detail, the better. This way is the easiest, the fastest, and will earn you the least money. Way #2: Individual Sets Try to assemble the sets as best as possible. Be EXTRAORDINARILY CLEAR about which pieces you're missing, and what the condition of the sets are, and then sell them set-by-set on BrickLink or eBay. Include instructions and boxes if you've got them, and be prepared to take lots of pictures, because many prospective buyers don't trust sellers, and will want to see the sets themselves before buying. Again, include as many pictures and as much information as you can. Note: if a set isn't more than 95% complete or so, you might not want to bother with it. If you've got King's Castle (664 pieces normally), but are missing 30-40 pieces, that's quite a lot, and may be quite frustrating for a buyer to receive (beware negative feedback!). Certainly be up front about it! Saying "95% complete" SOUNDS like it's mostly complete, but it sure doesn't FEEL like it when you're building the set, and every 20th piece is missing! This method is moderately involved, and will earn you a nice chunk of money. If you sell them set-by-set on eBay, you'll probably make a little less than set-by-set on BrickLink, but it'll be over and done with when the auctions are over. If you go the BrickLink route, it'll take months for everything to sell, and you may need to drop your prices a few times on remaining items. Way #3: Piece by Piece This has the POTENTIAL to earn you the most money, takes the most effort, and the most time. Keep in mind, NOBODY cares about basic brick. You've got 1x4 black plates? So what? Nobody's going to buy them from you. But they WILL buy those rare classic BlackTron I minifigures! If you opt for this method, I'd suggest listing all the elements at once on BrickLink, and anything that hasn't sold in 2 months, drop the price, and repeat. After 6 months, take all the remaining "boring" brick, and auction it off by the pound on eBay. Otherwise, if you keep them on BrickLink, you'll be waiting years to sell off those common elements, and probably won't ever actually make the sale. DaveE

Use Bram's tool in combination with your favorite LDraw utility like LDView, MLCAD, LeoCAD, or what-have-you. That'll give you the instructions needed to build 1/6th of the sphere. Build 6 identical copies, and then place them around a central core of studs-out bricks (the core's shape and size will depend on how large of a sphere you have). DaveE

Effectively, each model builder is given a budget for a particular set and a palette of bricks that are "available". The better the selection of bricks is, and the bigger your budget is, the better set you can design. With a $3.00 budget, you'd wind up with a pretty crappy minifig-scale Slave I! Did you ever build the one they put out for $20 back in 2000? The 2006 version puts it to shame, but it's $50! And if given a budget of $250, I imagine they could've churned out a REALLY AMAZING one! Now, in my opinion, the level of improvement between a $100 budget and a $130 budget probably isn't very noticeable. But a difference between a $20 set and a $50 set (while still being $30) is VERY noticeable. Essentially, the "quality" curve is probably logarithmic in nature, at least in the higher range. And of course the other thing is the palette of bricks that you have access to. If you've got a great palette, you can make a great set, and can probably come in under budget. And if you've got a poor palette, you can't make as great of a set. Anyway, there are so many factors that I don't think you can claim that they could've made a great remake for $50. Just because they did it in 2006 doesn't mean they can do it again in 2010. A lot has changed since then! DaveE

Actually, I think it looks better in dark red, now that I try to imagine it with reddish-brown. But that's besides the point. Either way, I hardly think it's worthy of an "epic fail" comment. So, yeah, maybe that's part of the reason that it's more expensive! You may have just answered your own question! Should I point out the various sets that DO have multi-color bricks on the interior? Would that solve anything? I'm telling you that's one of the reasons WHY they do it. So, unless you have some insider information regarding how the set was received when test-built with kids, or have some other fact that LEGO isn't aware of (like independent studies done on model building), then I don't see the usefulness in arguing the point. You said you don't like it, I explained the reasons that LEGO has told us why it's done. Unless you have some more light to shed on the topic? Those "stats" are things I made up to illustrate the point of a tradeoff curve. The numbers aren't important. And moreover, I pulled them out of thin air. It's the idea that's important. That's what I'm trying to get across. I fully admit that instead of writing numbers down, I should have drawn you a pretty picture with no numbers, but that's more effort, so I didn't. The point was to illustrate the concept, not give specific numbers. DaveE

I believe he's talking about the "Bruce Lowell" sphere design, which originated back in 2003: http://bruce.kus-numa.net/lego/miscellaneous/sphere68.html The idea was so popular that it was used by Legoland model designers, and other AFOLs all over. In 2005, Bram Lambrecht made a program to facilitate the process for other sizes of the sphere, seen here: http://lego.bldesign.org/sphere/ That, in turn has been used to generate lots of SNOT-style globes, like the one seen here by Eric Harshbarger: http://www.ericharshbarger.org/lego/globe2.html DaveE

The sets are expensive because they are. I wish they were MORE expensive, because then maybe LEGO wouldn't have had to cut so much on quality. It's been noted that many of the Star Wars sets have gone up in cost recently, and AFAIK, LEGO hasn't said why. The speculation on the fan side is that this has to do with one or more of: 1) Lucasfilm's royalties increasing 2) Increased molding requirements 3) Change in profit margin for LEGO 4) Increase in oil costs for plastics (or other internal costs) 5) Change in retailer relationships (different wholesale costs) As stated, I'm often ashamed to be among hordes of Americans who apparently want to pay nothing for everything-- forcing jobs out of the US (and Denmark!) and into 3rd-world nations that treat their employees like crap, all so we get crappy quality stuff for nothing. Sorry for a tangent, but the expectation that prices "should" be lower gets me rather annoyed. These are all tradeoffs. The set you're asking for might cost, say, $130, and wouldn't be all that much different for most customers. LEGO can't just decide to make pieces in brown today and dark red tomorrow and dark brown the next day. They have to optimize the colors and elements that are released. If there are 2 sets that want reddish-brown 1x6's, and 4 sets that want dark-red 1x6's, then they can save money by making them ALL be dark-red rather than reddish-brown. By contrast, they could keep their distinct colors, but now you'll need to arrange a separate production run for the reddish-brown, and then those reddish-brown 1x6's cost much more. The yellow interior? That could be the same deal (IE it's cheaper if they go with yellow), but it probably also has to do with how easy the set is to build for kids. Bricks that aren't seen from the exterior are often made in other colors to provide a larger contrast to make them easier to build. Anyway, yes, you can make a set that's amazing, but will cost tons. Or you can make a cheap set that's satisfy nobody. LEGO has to make a call on where the balance point is. Maybe you can think about it in these terms: Cost vs. Customer Satisfaction ... $40 vs. 20% $50 vs. 30% $60 vs. 40% $70 vs. 60% $80 vs. 75% $90 vs. 80% $100 vs. 85% $120 vs. 90% $140 vs. 95% $160 vs. 97% ... So, where's the sweet spot? Where will LEGO make the most money? The higher priced sets won't sell because they're too expensive, and the lower priced sets won't sell because the customers aren't satisfied with the product. So you get a compromise in the middle somewhere. DaveE

BrickFair 2010 possibly? DaveE

The representative was correct, but not explicit. "Castle" IS being discontinued. It is being replaced with "Kingdoms". So, say good-bye to the fantasy-style castle sets, and say hello to the new Kingdoms lineup. Chances are that Kingdoms will be around for 2010, with some small one-off sets (like the advent calendar and other impulse style sets) being released later in 2010 and 2011. And if enough merchandisers like the way Kingdoms is selling, we'll probably see the line continued with more sets released in 2011 and 2012. Maybe even beyond that (if it does REALLY well). Then, just like with "Castle", it'll probably get replaced with a new flavor of castle-themed sets. "Bionicle" is also being discontinued. "Hero Factory" is replacing it. The hope is that Hero Factory will be just as great as Bionicle was back in 2001, but that's probably unlikely. So who knows how long Hero Factory will be around, but probably for a couple years, again, depending on how cool it is. For a short time in 2004-2006, there was a quasi cross-breed of Bionicle and castle, being the "Large Figures" sub-theme of Knight's Kingdom. But that was axed back in 2006, and hasn't really been replaced. It was similar to the current "Ben 10" figures or Galidor. DaveE

They care about us quite a bit-- they just don't care enough about us to provide us forums that we'd be satisfied with. Any forums they could give us to make us happy would either be stupidly extra work on their part, or would scare the pants off their lawyers. Probably both. It's probably already risky enough that they have any boards at all. But it's pretty clear from perusing them that their boards just aren't intended for in-depth conversation. DaveE

I think that sort of makes it sound like fan sites didn't pre-date LEGO's discussion areas. There have been LEGO discussions on the internet since at least 1993 (probably earlier)-- I don't recall exactly when LEGO started hosting their own discussion groups, but certainly ATL, RTL, LUGNET, FBTB, and BZCommunity all had discussion areas before LEGO had boards. BrickLink and BZPower might also have been major sites with discussion areas that pre-dated LEGO, not sure. Classic-Castle, Classic-Space, and Eurobricks probably coincided roughly with the timeframe of LEGO's boards. Does anyone know when LEGO first starting having discussion forums? [edit]Found it! November 12th, 2002: http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=39376 So, BZPower pre-dates LEGO's boards (and I forgot about 1000steine, too, also before LEGO's boards)-- still not sure about when BrickLink came out with forums on their site... And Classic-Castle, Classic-Space, and EuroBricks were all after LEGO. [/edit] DaveE

Star Wars was the first major line I'm aware of that did NOT include alternate models on the boxes. Instead, some of them (the larger sets) featured animated "comic book style" alternate models in the instruction booklets. Around the same time, other sets stopped offering alternate models, although some still had them. I believe the comic book alternates were last seen in 2000, although I'm not sure on that one... Taking a quick look through some boxes in my collection, EVERY box from 1998 and earlier has alternate models. Star Wars (starting in 1999) seems not to have any alternates, and neither does Harry Potter (2001). Some sets seem to start leaving off alternates in that timeframe, but I still see alternate models on various boxes through 2003. As for why, it's probably also due to: 1) As stated, customer requests for building instructions. These have ALWAYS plagued LEGO, not sure if this was getting to be a bigger problem in the late 1990's. 2) It's much more work to design and then photograph alternate models. Each one has to be approved and probably pass through the same design committees as the main model. 3) Less perceived benefit. I'm sure LEGO looked into how much kids liked or appreciated the alternates. I would expect that if LEGO still found kids being attracted to the alternates, they'd still have them. But my guess is that kids nowadays are more likely to simply throw out the boxes (they're less handy for storage), making the alternate models even less valuable. 4) Product representation. Probably not a big reason, but it's possible that LEGO was worried about misrepresenting the set they were selling. My best guess is #2. LEGO was struggling in the early 2000's, and started cheapening their packaging. So I'd guess cutting alternate models was mainly a cost saving measure. DaveE

Yeah, I imagine you could play with as many players as you wanted-- I played around with some board layouts for 2 players, but you could really change it up however you want. I think I like the idea that each minifig needs to get their particular accessory (and any characters without accessories would need to have one assigned to them). In looking at the minifig's stats, I think it may need some adjustment, considering there are only 2 characters (Robot & Magician) that have a "Creativity" rating of 5, and strangely NO minifigure has a Creativity rating of 4! I think considering that, it may need to be changed such that a minifig with lower creativity can build/unbuild larger bricks than their creativity, but perhaps it just means they take extra turns to do so. Or something like that... DaveE

Ah, ok. I have absolutely no interest in hosting a game whatsoever, so we're good. I just wanted to discuss potential game rules and so forth. Feedback, potential other ideas, etc. And if anyone out there wants to give it a play-test, that's all the better. DaveE

So... this is the wrong forum to discuss it, because it's not an approved wargame or mafia game? Can it be moved to the appropriate forum, then? DaveE

So, in looking at the Minifigures website, I noticed they each have stats. That made me think, is there going to be any actual POINT to those stats? Then I figured, why not make a game with them? So, here's a game idea to kick around: * The gameboard consists of 6x6 squares of LEGO studs, delineated however you'd like. Some of them are impassable (maybe blue for water, black for a bottomless pit, or red for lava or something). Start with whatever configuration you want. * The goal is perhaps one or many of: 1) Build something at a particular location 2) Get your minifigs to a particular location 3) Have each minifig retrieve "their accessory" (may have to be lenient on some characters) * Each minifig's stats relate to what they can do in the game: "Speed" - number of squares a minifig can travel in a turn. "Strength" - number of bricks a minifig can carry at once. "Creativity" - the size of bricks that a minifig can assemble. * Each player chooses 1 or more minifigs whose total "stat score" totals 20 or less. So you could have (for example) 4 Spacemen (5 points each), or 1 Robot (13 points) and 1 Cheerleader (7 points). * The board has several spots that contain an "unlimited" supply of 1x1's,1x2's, 1x3's, 1x4's, and 1x6's, at various locations. * On each turn, each minifig owned by a player must either move, pick up/drop bricks, or build/unbuild a brick on a creation on their current square. They cannot sit around idle, and also cannot continuously build and unbuild. * Building/Unbuilding can only be done with bricks that match a minifig's creativity level. If your minifig has a 1 for creativity, he can only build/unbuild 1x1 bricks. A minifig with a creativity of 4 can build/unbuild anything up to a 1x4 brick. Etc. * Each square can only have 1 minifig at a time on it. Not sure about how many "loose" bricks should be allowed to be on a given square, but "loose" bricks should probably be lain on their sides, while "assembled" bricks should be built onto the 6x6 square. * Assembled bricks can only be stacked on the current square, or be attached to another brick that's already attached to the current square. * Minifigs can "climb" their creations, but they need to be able to have at least a "step" of a 1x2 surface at each level in order to do so. Climbing a creation counts as 1 square, even if it crosses a span of many actual squares. * Minifigs cannot cross a solid wall that spans across a square if it is 2 studs tall or taller. Thoughts? DaveE

No. I might if they WERE amazing parts packs (like the Statue of Liberty), but they typically aren't. They typically offer a smattering of wonderful parts, but are largely made up of things I don't need. Individual. If the sets were all under $100, I might consider it for completeness's sake, but they're not. Something cool :) Taj Mahal - Awesome. Eiffel Tower - Lame. It was too pixelated for my tastes (that is, it looked too much like it was all rectangular bricks, rather than looking smooth) Statue of Liberty - Kinda weak model (again, very pixelated), but provided a wealth of sand green. Other ideas: - Sydney Opera House - Empire State Building - Mont Saint Michel - London's Tower Bridge - Notre Dame Cathedral - Tower of Pisa - Parthenon - Et Cetera. - Dinosaur skeleton? - A working (spinnable) globe? - Spirit of St. Louis plane? - Grandfather Clock? DaveE